Account Sharing Discussion

[Metsfanmax]

As recent C&A cases have come to show, there is a serious lack of community consensus when it comes to the question of acceptable use of the account sitting allowance. These C&A cases have hinged upon the fact that Conquer Club condones the sharing of passwords between users. As a result, account sitting becomes possible at any time in any game if someone else has your password. Since we presumably do not want to encourage people not taking their own turns, we generally agree that we need to place acceptable limits on what can be done when you permanently share your password with someone. The recent ruling against various members of KORT was ostensibly a step towards placing more firm restrictions on what you may do if you have a teammate's account password. However, I do not believe the ruling in any way substantially clarified the situation. That is, I don't think a line was drawn between acceptable account sitting behavior, and account sharing abuse. To demonstrate this, please consider a few different situations and how the C&A mods would need to handle them. In each one Player B has permanent access to Player A's account and in any games referenced, Player A and Player B are on the same team in the same game.

Situation 1: Player A checks his turn in the game with 12 hours left, but does not want to take his turn yet because his teammate has not answered his questions in game chat and because he plans to log in later that day to take his turn. After he logs off, his internet connection is disabled because of weather, and he contacts Player B by phone and tells him that he will not be able to take his own turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 2: Same situation as Situation 1, except Player A is unable to contact Player B and warn him. Player B later notices that Player A has 30 minutes left in his turn and concludes that Player A is probably going to miss his turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 3: Player A logs in with 2 hours left on several games and is too tired to play all of them. He notifies Player B that he does not intend to play all of them because he is going to sleep, and asks Player B to play the remaining turns for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 4: Same situation as Situation 3, except Player B is not marked as online and Player A does not expect him to be able to cover the turn. Nevertheless, he wall posts Player B just in case, to say that he is not going to play some of his turns because he is going to sleep. An hour later Player B logs on and sees the wall post. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 5: Same situation as Situation 4, except Player B is online and Player A expects that Player B will be able to take his turn for him, though he does not explicitly ask to have the turn covered. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 6: In the game, Player A has come upon a turn on a map that he finds very difficult to play. He believes that Player B is a more skilled player than he is, and although Player A has taken all of his turns in the game up to this point, he does not think he will be able to do it well and asks Player B to take his turn for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Situation 7: Same situation as Situation 6, except that Player A logs on with only 10 minutes left in his turn and thinks he will need more time than that to correctly play the turn, whereas Player B could finish on time, with his superior experience and skill. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

The purpose of these questions is to perhaps get a conversation going regarding the clarification of these rules. I believe that if the staff implemented a clear rule, such as not being allowed to account sit except if the player has announced they are going on vacation, then many of these problems would vanish. On the other hand, clear and easy to understand rules are not always the best. So I would like some input, not only from the staff but also the community, regarding what the best way to handle these situations is. I hope that by the end of the discussion, we will have enough material to base a long-lasting policy on.

What I do not want is any flaming whatsoever. This is not intended to be a discussion about the KORT ruling or any active C&A case. I gave these cases purely as hypothetical situations because we will make much more efficient progress if we don't devolve into arguments about specific players and specific actions. Also, this is not a thread about banning account sitting in general. Account sitting is generally recognized to be acceptable when you are on vacation and I am fine with that, if it's what the community wants. The real intent here is to make sure that when you ask someone to sit your turn for you, that you don't have to worry about whether you'll be busted in a C&A case a year down the road, because once and for all we solidified the rules on the issue.

By the way: if you answered "no" to any of the above questions, consider whether Player B or Player A has violated the rules, if Player B does indeed take the turn for Player A.

In response to a request, here is the current FAQ entry regarding sitting:

Q: Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

A: You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

Here is the ruling from KA in the recent C&A case (emphasis mine):

A user or group of users who loosely share their accounts among one another to improve their score and gaming by means of strategically allowing others to take their turns for them at specific times, or allowing well versed and ranked users to essentially play select games on their account for them to boost their score and rank, is another facet of Account Sitting Abuse.

So far, the case has it's point to show us that there are players out there who loosely share their passwords with one another so that they can take care of each other's accounts. This practice is bordering in account sharing and influences the account owners to be less responsible of their games, since they already have this thinking that someone is going to save them from missing at least one turn or more.

For this case, at some point, josko.ri could/should have simply told the other players to stop relying on him to take turns for them. Account sitting is for a definite period of time and NOT for an indefinite period. You can't assign an account sitter to account sit for you for as long as his blood is running into his veins. Then you can now sleep soundly whenever or do other stuff because you know he is going to save you from missing a turn. If you are capable of taking your turn, then take it. Do not make someone be responsible for your own account or lean too much for his advise.

Should we be thankful when you are on vacation, and you are supposedly not available to be online at the time, but you still manage to take some turns while leaving other games for your sitter? Perhaps it just gives more complication as it becomes suspicious if you really are unavailable in the first place or if you just assigned someone to play some specific games for you.

We know that people share their passwords with others in case of emergency. Some may also be guilty of playing other people's turns even when not needed simply because they have free access to that account. How can this be controlled? We certainly do not want to discourage people not posting in the game chat if they are sitting for someone for fear of any possible issues regarding account sitting. Until a sitter feature is encoded, it would be impossible to control this practice and it mostly falls on you not to abuse your privileges or share your accounts with one another.

My interpretation of this ruling is that Situation 3, 4 and 5 would all be a violation of the rules if Player B did take the turn, and possibly Situation 2 as well.

[tkr4lf]

I personally don't see a problem with any of those situations. That is, I would answer yes to all of them.

I think the main point of this game is enjoyment. While I can't speak for everybody else, I find the game to be more enjoyable when I don't have to wait 24 hours just for somebody to not take their turn. If they have someone who can take the turn for them, for whatever reason, then that is all the better. I don't really care who it is that is taking the turn. They could be a cook or a field marshal, and I'd be ok with it. I just want to play the games, and not have to wait an unnecessary amount of time.

And I think that especially in clan games, there shouldn't be restrictions on account sitting. Clan games, or any team games, for that matter, depend heavily on everybody taking their turns. A missed turn can cost a game. If a clan mate can get that turn taken, then all the better.

I really don't see the big deal that's being made out of this. I don't understand why it's such a problem. And as I've seen somebody say in another thread, this is all leading to the banning of account sitting at all. Or, at the least, it will lead to a large and unnecessary amount of rules about when and why you can take a turn for another person. When that happens, if you're in a clan, you sure as hell better hope that all your clanmates make their turns, or else, too bad. If that costs you an important game or a whole war, well, too bad.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the whole situation. I'm sure many of you disagree with me, otherwise this topic wouldn't even be being discussed. Have fun ruining a very handy and needed feature of the site.

[jefjef]

As recent C&A cases have come to show, there is a serious lack of community consensus when it comes to the question of acceptable use of the account sitting allowance.

Serious lack of community consensus? Do you mean the four of you that want to ban sitting?

Pffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttt.

You know what max - I sit for a lot of people. Stepping into the middle of an ongoing game, especially fog, not knowing whats been going on or a map/setting I don't play is NOT a strategic gain for who is being sat for. It's simply progressing the game and giving the missing player a chance. It also keeps those deferred troops from showing up later.

Tell you what buddy! I'm going to pm my friends list and get some more input here for your thread and maybe you will see a consensus.

[Ryno99]

I personally don't see a problem with any of those situations. That is, I would answer yes to all of them.

I think the main point of this game is enjoyment. While I can't speak for everybody else, I find the game to be more enjoyable when I don't have to wait 24 hours just for somebody to not take their turn. If they have someone who can take the turn for them, for whatever reason, then that is all the better. I don't really care who it is that is taking the turn. They could be a cook or a field marshal, and I'd be ok with it. I just want to play the games, and not have to wait an unnecessary amount of time.

And I think that especially in clan games, there shouldn't be restrictions on account sitting. Clan games, or any team games, for that matter, depend heavily on everybody taking their turns. A missed turn can cost a game. If a clan mate can get that turn taken, then all the better.

I really don't see the big deal that's being made out of this. I don't understand why it's such a problem. And as I've seen somebody say in another thread, this is all leading to the banning of account sitting at all. Or, at the least, it will lead to a large and unnecessary amount of rules about when and why you can take a turn for another person. When that happens, if you're in a clan, you sure as hell better hope that all your clanmates make their turns, or else, too bad. If that costs you an important game or a whole war, well, too bad.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the whole situation. I'm sure many of you disagree with me, otherwise this topic wouldn't even be being discussed. Have fun ruining a very handy and needed feature of the site.

Couldn't have said it better myself. As much as I love CC, I have a life, a job and a family and sometimes, well all the time those take priority over CC. I have made many wonderful friends on CC from all around the world and am lucky enough to be able to trust them with my account when needed. If sitting is not allowed, I more than likely would not be able to enjoy the game I have grown to love and would leave CC.

I hope that this is nipped in the bud very quickly and but to bed. In the end this is a game and it's all for fun. The day its not fun to me will be my last on CC. So I truly hope cooler heads prevail with this and logic is taken into account and sitting is allowed to continue.

Just my .02 for what it's worth.

[jghost7]

Here is the currently listed guideline....this should be up in the OP for comparison.


Account-Sitting:

Players are allowed to account-sit for others as long as they are not opponents within the game. When sitting for a player, you need to post who you are and how long you will be sitting for the player so that other players in the game are aware of who they are actually playing.
Being on another player's account for ANY reasons other than taking turns when they are in danger of missing a turn, or posting to necessary Tournament or Clan related public forum topics, is not allowed. Abuse of this privilege can be considered account sharing and could result in a Bust for both accounts.


edit: You asked 'consider whether it is Player B or Player A that has acted wrongly', but the player never acted, you only ask if it would be legitimate.

[Estebanzia]

Estebanzia for Buzzkill13 here

I agree with tkr4lf, and I would just add that some games last very long, so it is very possible that you go on vacation (or whatever else) and are not able to take your turns. The sad thing here is for team games. You penalize every member of your team while the account sitting avoid that.

To ban the account sittings would create a bigger problem than whatever problem you might see with it.

[gqmecock]

I see no way to fairly police this. taking away account sitting would negatively impact all parties.....more missed turns, team games would turn into marathons waiting on opponents to miss turns. I believe that would be a strategy used in all games (take as long as you can and hope your opponent is unavailable).

[jpcloet]

The title is Account Sharing but then you go into Account Sitting. It would interesting to see what the definitions are.

[co-co]

If account sitting is banned I will no longer be able to play CC. I have a wife, 3 kids and a job; there are times when I am unable to get to a computer, whether it be taking the kids camping, working away from home or any one of a hundred other reasons. Without the use of a sitter I would never be able to enter any tournament that lasted more than a couple of days.

I understand that some people in life cheat; whether it be on their wife/husband, or in games; but generally speaking in my experiece all cheats lose out in the end and penalising everyone else because of them does not work as they will find a different way to cheat.

Fundamentally, I guess the question is about whether this is meant to be a fun game in which all can play or a very serious competition where stricts rules apply where only those who have every form of technology and no outside life can compete.

I will watch with interest the result of this debate.

[jefjef]

The title is Account Sharing but then you go into Account Sitting. It would interesting to see what the definitions are.

Account sharing is a rules violation, not allowed and already policed. It's interesting how he is associating the two in hopes of banning sitting.

[mviola]

I personally don't see a problem with any of those situations. That is, I would answer yes to all of them.

I think the main point of this game is enjoyment. While I can't speak for everybody else, I find the game to be more enjoyable when I don't have to wait 24 hours just for somebody to not take their turn. If they have someone who can take the turn for them, for whatever reason, then that is all the better. I don't really care who it is that is taking the turn. They could be a cook or a field marshal, and I'd be ok with it. I just want to play the games, and not have to wait an unnecessary amount of time.

And I think that especially in clan games, there shouldn't be restrictions on account sitting. Clan games, or any team games, for that matter, depend heavily on everybody taking their turns. A missed turn can cost a game. If a clan mate can get that turn taken, then all the better.

I really don't see the big deal that's being made out of this. I don't understand why it's such a problem. And as I've seen somebody say in another thread, this is all leading to the banning of account sitting at all. Or, at the least, it will lead to a large and unnecessary amount of rules about when and why you can take a turn for another person. When that happens, if you're in a clan, you sure as hell better hope that all your clanmates make their turns, or else, too bad. If that costs you an important game or a whole war, well, too bad.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the whole situation. I'm sure many of you disagree with me, otherwise this topic wouldn't even be being discussed. Have fun ruining a very handy and needed feature of the site.

Couldn't have said it better myself. As much as I love CC, I have a life, a job and a family and sometimes, well all the time those take priority over CC. I have made many wonderful friends on CC from all around the world and am lucky enough to be able to trust them with my account when needed. If sitting is not allowed, I more than likely would not be able to enjoy the game I have grown to love and would leave CC.

I hope that this is nipped in the bud very quickly and but to bed. In the end this is a game and it's all for fun. The day its not fun to me will be my last on CC. So I truly hope cooler heads prevail with this and logic is taken into account and sitting is allowed to continue.

Just my .02 for what it's worth.

Just because a few clans can't deal with losing, don't penalize everyone else for it. Forcing people to be at their computer every day to take their turns when most people have expressed they can't is not how to fix the problem.

[chapcrap]

Account sharing is already banned...as a mod, you should know that I think.

Account sitting should not be banned. I'm gonna be on vacation and I don't want to miss turns. People should not be punished because they don't want to devote every extra second of their life to CC. It's ok to have a life outside of CC. If sitting is banned, this is not allowed.

Punish the few people who break the rules, don't restrict the masses because of some dummies.

[jghost7]

I am of the pro-sitting camp. I agree with a lot of our positions. Add my .02 to the jar.

However, I think this part needs some work.

...And I think that especially in clan games, there shouldn't be restrictions on account sitting...

In most clan wars there is a restriction of how many games each clansman can play per war. Some were of the opinion that this is a way to circumvent this rule. I think that this in particular is a major motivation for the recent claims and actions brought about. You would not have heard much about it otherwise. I think we, as clans, would have to come together to come up with a suitable solution or agreement for this and how it works with the current rules.

Outside of the clan wars game count rule I don't see a major issue with sitting for other players when the need arises.

[Bruceswar]

17. Can I let another player take a turn for me when I am away from the game?

You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.


Taken from

http://www.conquerclub.com/eticket/index.php#openticket


Take note it does not say you have to post when sitting, but it nice when you do post. Most people post when sitting.

The part in red.... Seems like what you setup in your cases is just that. Someone going to miss a turn and someone bust in and takes it.

[Evil Semp]

In most clan wars there is a restriction of how many games each clansman can play per war. Some were of the opinion that this is a way to circumvent this rule. I think that this in particular is a major motivation for the recent claims and actions brought about. You would not have heard much about it otherwise. I think we, as clans, would have to come together to come up with a suitable solution or agreement for this and how it works with the current rules.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't think Mets in this thread is to get anything banned. Rather than everyone coming in here and saying I have a life, by the way we all do. No one is asking that you be chained to your computer. When Mets said community consensus I think he was asking the community where does account sitting end and account sharing begin.

I think one of the problems here in the forums is we have to many grammar police, or people who try to read something that isn't there. jefjef your guilty of that this time. He isn't trying to get anything banned in this thread.

I am not saying account sitting is going to be banned but it looks like quite a few of you are afraid that it will be. Lets make this a constructive discussion. Come up with a definition of account sitting and what is acceptable.

[maxcst]

You can, with the stipulation that the account babysitter is not your opponent in any current game. It is common courtesy to announce in game chat that another player will take your turn(s) during your absence. Babysitters should only do what is necessary to take the turn(s) and should not interact with the community, start or join new games (except for ongoing tournaments). Furthermore, you should only take another player's turn if they are in danger of missing a turn, not for the purpose of gaining a tactical advantage.

I find that this regulation is complete and correct, everything can be hacked in life and in CC also with other restrictions, these words are just for people who love this game.

[jeraado]

I'm sure we'd be happy to do this, ES, if it wasn't for the fact that this is being generated from a suggestion to ban Account Sitting, which this particular mod kept on life support because they like it, even though the vast majority of posters didn't. You're asking for a pretty huge leap of faith from the community by asking them to believe that a 'constuctive discussion' isn't just a second attempt to push through rule changes, or to be used as ammunition in that debate.

In my opinion, the answers to those questions are pretty much all 'common sense applies'. It seems to work for pretty much all the other rules, and this is no different. We should be able to trust that users will be responsible and only use sitters when the result otherwise will be a missed turn. If people are violating that trust then they are punished. We don't need rules which cover every possible scenario, and the rules should be flexible enough to take into account circumstances. That's why we have C&A mods - to take into account what the rule is, what the facts of the particular alleged breach are, and what the community standard is.

I believe that the system works for 99.9% of users, which is far better than most. If the mods want to change some of the wording under account sitting to clarify intent, then that's fine, but don't change the rules or expectations just because one or two people don't want to have a sitter

[Beta Banger]

Blah blah blah.. yackety schmackety... drop this issue already. Nothing wrong with a friend covering for you. Yeah, it will be abused from time to time but doesn't EVERYTHING? Gonna ban EVERYTHING now? I've seen a TON of people abusing game chat.. I guess we should ban that first.

meh

[DresdenSooner]

Account sitting does not break any rules that I have seen on the rules page. You may want to interpret account sitting has abuse of the "Only one account per player" rule, but that is clearly not what is happening. Sometimes real life gets chaotic and you simply can't get your turns taken, and as Jefjef pointed out, coming in to a game cold with no idea what has happened really hinders the person sitting the account.

The point is simply to keep the games moving at a decent pace. I would much rather see someone take a turn for a player than wait 3 days for the player to get kicked out for missing too many turns. In fact I have been in multiple games where a player in the middle of the game with stacks of troops in strategic places miss 3 turns which totally ruined my strategy and cost me the game. I like knowing that stacks of troops are not going to be left on the board blocking attack lines and even bonuses.

I got no problem with account sitting.

DS

[jefjef]

I think one of the problems here in the forums is we have to many grammar police, or people who try to read something that isn't there. jefjef your guilty of that this time. He isn't trying to get anything banned in this thread.

I am not saying account sitting is going to be banned but it looks like quite a few of you are afraid that it will be. Lets make this a constructive discussion. Come up with a definition of account sitting and what is acceptable.

Well ES - page 2 is full of excellent posts. I hope you read them.

metsfan, in the sitting ban sugg thread, was very adamant in pushing for outright banning sitting. There is no doubt this thread is an attempt to go that direction again.

As for acceptable account sitting, maxcst kindly copied the official CC description (1st post page 2). It is quite clear and precisely covers what is considered abuse. You're familiar with it. It's your guide for rulings and it gives you flexibility for your rulings.

If it's decided that the sitter is only taking the turn for strategic gain then he gets punished. If the sitter is using it like a second account he gets punished. This type of activity is already clearly defined and punished.

[jpcloet]

Account sharing is already banned...as a mod, you should know that I think.

Account sitting should not be banned. I'm gonna be on vacation and I don't want to miss turns. People should not be punished because they don't want to devote every extra second of their life to CC. It's ok to have a life outside of CC. If sitting is banned, this is not allowed.

Punish the few people who break the rules, don't restrict the masses because of some dummies.

I simply asked a rhetorical question based on unclear definitions and lack of examples. Part of the recent issues is that account sitting became account sharing at some point and to some degree, yet both are premiums so there is no need to share. And the basis of the number of turns taken or other actions has not been disclosed to anyone, let alone the public. Account issues have been on my radar for over 2 years and it is finally hitting the fan.

Account sitting should be allowed. The site should also reconsider the 24H clock which is also playing a part I believe along with the tension of not missing team game turns. I don't they they (admin) understand why people are doing what they are doing. I too have kids and a full-time job and have very few options for a sitter, so I end up playing much less than I would enjoy.

[AAFitz]

The title is Account Sharing but then you go into Account Sitting. It would interesting to see what the definitions are.

Account sharing is a rules violation, not allowed and already policed. It's interesting how he is associating the two in hopes of banning sitting.

Interesting to some perhaps, but not most I imagine.

Sitting is absolutely necessary. Some abuse it occasionally and are dealt with accordingly. The vast majority use fairly when necessary and CC is better off for it.

Its perhaps hypocritical for me to say its as simple as that, but in reality, it simply is.

[morleyjoe]

The title is Account Sharing but then you go into Account Sitting. It would interesting to see what the definitions are.

Account sharing is a rules violation, not allowed and already policed. It's interesting how he is associating the two in hopes of banning sitting.

Interesting to some perhaps, but not most I imagine.

Sitting is absolutely necessary. Some abuse it occasionally and are dealt with accordingly. The vast majority use fairly when necessary and CC is better off for it.

Its perhaps hypocritical for me to say its as simple as that, but in reality, it simply is.

Well said by all - it appears every post here agrees with the same simple premise - Sharing bad, Sitting good, Leave rules as is.

[Metsfanmax]

I want to make it clear that this is in no way an attempt to ban account sitting. It is currently a community consensus that if you go on vacation, you should have an account sitter. I am not attempting to argue that here. What I am talking about, though, is the situations where you do not announce you are going on vacation. In those cases, it has not ever really been clear when you are allowed to sit for someone, and when you are not. Some of you have said that "account sharing" is banned, and that's fine, but the problem I am discussing here is that we do not know what account sharing abuse actually is. "Account sharing" itself is logically only when someone has permanent access to your account, and KA did not ban someone permanently having your password in the KORT ruling, and so naturally we need to have a consensus for when you can take turns for another player if you permanently have their password -- that is, we need to define "account sharing abuse."

Furthermore, if you're in the camp that you should be allowed to take a turn for someone whenever they're in danger of missing it (that is, you answered "yes" to all situations above) then you should be glad that I am starting this discussion too, because the KA ruling says that your position is against the rules!

By the way, in response to the request for clarification, when I asked about whether Player B had acted wrongly, I meant that you should assume he did end up taking the turn for Player A.

[GoranZ]

Situation 1: Player A checks his turn in the game with 12 hours left, but does not want to take his turn yet because his teammate has not answered his questions in game chat and because he plans to log in later that day to take his turn. After he logs off, his internet connection is disabled because of weather, and he contacts Player B by phone and tells him that he will not be able to take his own turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

YES, YES and YES its legitimate for Player B to take Player A turn... Its called team game for a reason. You can never classify this as account sharing.

Situation 2: Same situation as Situation 1, except Player A is unable to contact Player B and warn him. Player B later notices that Player A has 30 minutes left in his turn and concludes that Player A is probably going to miss his turn. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Same as Situation 1. You can never classify this as account sharing.

Situation 3: Player A logs in with 2 hours left on several games and is too tired to play all of them. He notifies Player B that he does not intend to play all of them because he is going to sleep, and asks Player B to play the remaining turns for him. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Have you ever feel tiered at work and you asked for a colleague of yours to cover you for some time(so you can take some fresh air outside)? Its legitimate.

Situation 4: Same situation as Situation 3, except Player B is not marked as online and Player A does not expect him to be able to cover the turn. Nevertheless, he wall posts Player B just in case, to say that he is not going to play some of his turns because he is going to sleep. An hour later Player B logs on and sees the wall post. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

Can someone tell me if I will be late from work tomorrow? No. So instead of coming from work at 6 PM. I will return at 8 PM. But I have to meet my gf in 9 PM so we can go to theater, so its obvious that I might miss some turns that I don't want to miss... I also don't want to be late for the meeting with my gf. I will do just what you said... I will message a friend so he can cover me.
Its legitimate.

Situation 5: Same situation as Situation 4, except Player B is online and Player A expects that Player B will be able to take his turn for him, though he does not explicitly ask to have the turn covered. Is it legitimate for Player B to take the turn for Player A?

After some time Situation 5 is transformed into Situation 2. Its legitimate.

Ok now I will point out the root of the problem. How many games at once can one player play effectively? 30-40, maybe 50, but all beyond that is waste of points. In other words if one player plays 50 games on his own and he decided to cover 3 friends with 50 games each(total of 200 games not 50 mutual) I want to know it, why? So I can take easy points . If you don't believe me give me the first ranking player, give him 200 games and watch as his rank sinks.
One thing that CC should do is to force every player that supervise to announce it in the game chat before making some moves, and announcement to have value until the end of the turn(new turn new announcement), nothing more.
In other words I dont mind if I play 10 games agents 5 accounts and in reality the moves are made by the same player... I just want to know that they are the same player nothing more lol